As Trump shatters ethics norms with a Qatari jet and a $499 smartphone, experts lament Biden's ‘failure' to pass reforms
CNN —
Ethics watchdogs rarely mince words about President Donald Trump.
They've called him the most corrupt and conflicted president in US history. And since he returned to the White House, they've watched with horror as he privately dined with wealthy investors for his personal memecoin fund, brazenly accepted a $400 million luxury airplane from Qatar and purged inspectors general from federal agencies.
Adding to their long list of gripes, the president's company announced Monday that it was launching Trump Mobile, a wireless service with monthly plans and a $499 smartphone, which would be regulated by many of the federal agencies now run by Trump appointees.
That has led to soul-searching among Washington, DC's self-appointed ethics watchdogs at advocacy groups and think tanks, who are wondering how this could've been prevented. Some have championed liberal causes for years; others aren't beholden to either party but are stunned by Trump's sea-change to the ethics landscape.
While they primarily hold Trump responsible for his own actions, they're increasingly concluding that former President Joe Biden also deserves some of the blame.
'The single biggest failure of the Biden administration was that he and Congress didn't pass any post-Watergate-style reforms,' said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight. 'President Biden had zero interest in doing that, and congressional Democrats didn't have much interest.'
Many of these experts, including Biden allies, say much more could've been done to get legislation across the finish line when Democrats had unified control in DC. House Democrats passed a landmark ethics and democracy bill in late 2021, but it languished.
It would've banned officials from taking foreign money (as Trump has with his memecoin). It would've tightened the rules for who can serve as acting leaders at federal agencies (a loophole Trump used to install loyalists). It would've protected civil servants from being reclassified and fired (which Trump is trying to do). it would've added job protections for inspectors general (Trump summarily fired more than a dozen in January). And it would've added transparency to the pardon process (which Trump has wielded to reward allies).
But one former Biden administration official faulted Trump alone.
'Blaming Biden when Trump breaches ethical norms is a prime example of the Democratic Party's problem right now,' the former Biden administration official told CNN. 'The suggestion is that the previous administration should have passed more laws? They're not following the current ones. The reality is, there is no way to Trump-proof the government.'
The T1 Phone by Trump Mobile.
From Trump Mobile
A new Trump 'ethics pledge'
In response to CNN's questions about Trump breaking ethics norms, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump is 'restoring the integrity of the Executive Branch' and claimed Trump's administration is the 'most transparent in American history.'
The Office of Government Ethics didn't respond to requests for comment about how Trump is avoiding conflicts of interests. (In February, Trump fired the Biden-appointed director of the agency, who was confirmed in December by the Senate in a party-line vote.)
The Trump Organization rolled out a new ethics pledge in January. Attorneys for the company said Trump won't be involved in managing his real estate empire, that they won't pursue new deals with foreign governments, and that an outside adviser would review all major deals – including deals with foreign businesses that will be allowed to continue.
Trump took these steps voluntarily, 'to avoid even the appearance of any conflict,' the lawyers wrote, even though some federal ethics laws don't apply to the president, and 'neither federal law nor the United States Constitution prohibits any President from continuing to own, operate and/or manage their businesses' while in the White House.
'It should've been a priority'
Presidents have limited time and political capital to enact their agenda. Some outside experts said it was clear that Biden prioritized other landmark laws – on Covid-19 relief, health care, climate change, infrastructure and gun control – instead of ethics reforms.
'That should have been the low-hanging fruit for Congress and the president when there was unified control,' said Daniel Weiner of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.
Hedtler-Gaudette said that during strategy sessions about reforms, Biden White House officials would often say they were doing their part by 'promoting a culture of compliance' by adhering to ethics laws. 'But compliance means you're complying with the weak set of laws that are already on the books,' Hedtler-Gaudette said, 'and not improving them.'
House Democrats did pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act in December 2021, but the Democratic-run Senate never took action on the legislation. (Ten Republicans would've needed to cross party lines to break a filibuster for the Senate to even consider the bill.)
'The Biden administration did not put its weight behind that, and those sorts of reforms really need the buy-in of the administration,' Weiner said. 'It should've been a priority.'
A former Democratic Hill staffer, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said ethics bills 'fell by the wayside' under Biden to make space for more pressing national needs.
'We were still in the worst parts of the pandemic. There were a lot of critical, in-your-face issues that needed to be fixed,' they said. 'We had just defeated Trump, and it was difficult for Democrats to wrap their heads around the fact that he could really come back. These ethics bills would've moved up the priority list if we had internalized that possibility.'
'A missed opportunity'
Donald Sherman, the top lawyer at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Trump has redefined what the mainstream deems acceptable.
'Government corruption isn't unique to one political party,' Sherman said. 'But Trump is singular in shifting the Overton window so far, in breaking rules that most people in government could never even imagine breaking, that it's impossible to ignore.'
CREW calls itself nonpartisan and has filed ethics complaints in the past against top Democrats, including under Biden. But like many 'good government' groups, it has increasingly adopted a staunch anti-Trump posture, as he keeps pushing the limits. In that vein, CREW led the unsuccessful effort to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the Constitution's 'insurrectionist ban.'
These watchdog groups are looking back longingly to when Trump's power was at its nadir.
Trump's approval rating tanked after the January 6, 2021, insurrection. And when Biden was sworn in, Democrats had unified control of Washington for the first time in a decade.
In those early weeks of the Biden era, a bipartisan House majority voted to impeach Trump, and a bipartisan Senate majority supported the effort, though it fell short of the 67 senators needed for conviction.
'The period after January 6, in the first years of President Biden's term, was an example of a missed opportunity,' Sherman said. 'This is a glaring moment now, because the corruption of President Trump's first term has predictably escalated.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily News Egypt
8 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
Digital services tax sparks new trade dispute as US halts talks with Canada
US President Donald Trump on Friday halted all trade negotiations with Canada over Ottawa's new digital services tax, which will affect American tech giants. Trump described the tax as a 'blatant attack' on the United States, escalating political tensions amid his ambitions to potentially annex Canada. 'Based on this egregious tax, we are hereby ending all trade discussions with Canada, effective immediately,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'We will be notifying Canada of the tariffs they will be paying to do business with the United States within the next seven days.' Trump has repeatedly expressed his opposition to digital services taxes during trade negotiations with other countries, viewing them as a 'non-tariff trade barrier.' Canada's new digital tax is scheduled to take effect next Monday and will be applied retroactively from 2022. In response, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Friday that he still wishes to continue negotiations with the United States. 'We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians. These are negotiations,' he told reporters. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent commented on CNBC on Friday, stating, 'We knew it was coming, and we were hoping it would not be implemented.' He added, 'We think it's fundamentally unfair to make it retroactive. This is a Trudeau-era issue, so we were hoping as a sign of goodwill that the new Carney administration would at least hold off on this tax during trade negotiations. But apparently, they did not.' Bessent indicated that if the Canadian government proceeds with the tax, Trump is prepared to impose higher tariffs on all Canadian goods, without specifying the rate. Canada is the largest buyer of American goods, importing $349bn worth last year, according to US Department of Commerce data. In turn, Canada exported $413bn in goods to the US, making it the third-largest source of foreign goods for the American market. The imposition of higher tariffs could provoke retaliatory measures from Canada, which some estimates suggest would cause economic harm to both nations. What is the Digital Services Tax? The government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau passed Canada's Digital Services Tax Act in June 2024, with its rules coming into effect the same month. The federal tax applies to large foreign and domestic companies that meet two specific criteria: total global revenues of €750m or more, and annual earnings exceeding $20m from Canadian sources. The legislation imposes a 3% tax on digital services revenue exceeding $20m. It applies retroactively to January 1, 2022, which according to some estimates, means Ottawa could collect billions of dollars. Taxable revenues include earnings from online marketplaces, digital advertising, social media, and user data, which will primarily affect US tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, and Meta Platforms. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, wrote in a social media post that he hoped both sides would return to the negotiating table: 'I am disappointed that trade talks have stalled. Hopefully they will resume soon.' Several Canadian companies and groups have expressed concern about proceeding with the tax, fearing an escalation of trade tensions with the US Why is Canada Imposing This Tax? A primary reason is to increase revenue. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated last year that the tax would generate more than C$7bn over five years. The Liberal Party of Canada, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had promised to introduce the tax during the 2019 federal election. However, its implementation was delayed for several years as a number of countries hoped to reach a unified international digital tax plan. As delays continued, Canada decided to proceed with its own plan. In addition to raising revenue, Ottawa is promoting the tax as a way to modernise its tax system to include profits generated within Canada by foreign companies that do not have a physical presence in the country, according to the Toronto Star. What is the US Position on the Tax? The United States has strongly opposed the tax from the outset because it primarily affects American tech giants. US officials have argued that the tax discriminates against American companies. In a rare display of unity, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rejected Canada's plan and have been united in their criticism. Early in his second term, Trump had threatened to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports, with the possibility of raising it further for some products. To date, most Canadian goods remain exempt from these tariffs, provided they comply with the United-States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Trump negotiated during his first term. The most notable exceptions have been a 25% tariff on all foreign cars and parts, steel, and aluminum. Trump later doubled the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50%. Canadian goods not compliant with the USMCA faced combined tariffs of 50%. In response to the auto tariffs, Canada imposed a 25% tariff on non-compliant US cars. It also retaliated against Trump's original steel and aluminum tariffs by imposing a 25% tariff on nearly $43bn of US goods, including alcoholic beverages, sports equipment, and home appliances. Despite Trump's latest tariff threats, US markets ended Friday on a high note. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq, which dipped slightly after Trump's post, rose 0.52% to close at record highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also climbed 432 points, or 1%. Why is Canada Not Delaying the Tax Amid Trade Tensions? Although Canadian and American business groups, organisations representing US tech giants, and several US lawmakers have signed letters in recent weeks calling for the tax to be repealed or at least postponed, Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has stated that the law has been approved by Parliament and that Canada will move forward with its implementation. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has argued that the tax could increase costs for consumers and risks 'damaging our mutually beneficial trading relationship with the United States.' 'In an effort to get trade talks back on track, Canada should immediately offer to repeal the Digital Services Tax in exchange for the removal of tariffs from the United States,' Goldy Hyder, the Chamber's President and CEO, told Bloomberg. How Could the United States Respond? Trump said he would withdraw from bilateral trade negotiations because Canada intends to proceed with the digital services tax, calling the move 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' This has cast doubt on whether a 30-day deadline to reach an agreement in the trade dispute can be met. The previous administration of President Joe Biden also opposed the tax but sought to resolve the dispute differently. In August 2024, it requested dispute settlement consultations with Canada under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The US has said that American companies are obligated to pay Ottawa $2bn under the digital services tax. In a statement issued in February, Trump said, 'America alone should be allowed to tax American companies.' In response to the Canadian rules, tech giant Google is imposing an additional 2.5% fee on advertisements shown in Canada, effective October 2024. Google stated that the surcharge, named the 'Canada DST Fee,' will cover 'a portion of the costs of complying with Canada's DST legislation.' Do Other Countries Apply Similar Taxes? Yes. France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, among others, all have such tax systems. According to the Tax Foundation Europe, about half of the European OECD countries have announced, proposed, or implemented a digital services tax. The United States has met these proposals with threats of retaliatory tariffs. France's Council of State, which advises the government on draft laws, has referred the country's digital services tax to the Constitutional Council for review, marking the first constitutional challenge to a DST since the legislation was passed in 2019.
Egypt Independent
8 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Israeli forces kill 15-year-old Palestinian boy after settlers attack West Bank towns, officials say
Jerusalem CNN — Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian teenager in the West Bank on Wednesday, Palestinian health authorities said, as settler violence against Palestinians surged in the occupied territory. The military shot 15-year-old Rayan Tamer Hawshiya in the neck, the Ministry of Health in Ramallah said, after troops raided Al Yamoun, near Jenin. Residents in the northern town reported 'heavy Israeli gunfire,' according to the minstry. The Israeli military said that 'terrorists hurled explosive devices at IDF forces' in Al Yamoun on Wednesday, adding that no IDF injuries were reported. 'Afterward, the forces identified terrorists approaching them while holding additional explosives,' the military told CNN. 'The forces responded with fire, and hits were identified.' Separately, a 66-year-old Palestinian woman died from injuries after Israeli police shot her in the head in occupied East Jerusalem, according to local media reports. Zahia Joudeh al-Obeidi 'succumbed to her wounds' after Israeli police stormed Shuafat refugee camp, Palestinian news agency WAFA reported. Israeli police said they launched an investigation into the circumstances of the death of an 'East Jerusalem resident,' adding that the resident was 'pronounced dead' by medical officials upon arrival at Shuafat checkpoint. The killings came on the heels of a spate of attacks in the West Bank town of Kafr Malik, where Israeli settlers set fire to Palestinian homes and vehicles in what one Israeli opposition politician called a 'violent Jewish pogrom.' Several people were killed and wounded, according to Palestinian and Israeli authorities. Rayan Tamer Hawshiya, aged 15, was killed by Israeli forces in a town near Jenin, in northern West Bank, officials say, where violence against Palestinians has spiraled in recent months. Hawshiya Family The details of the deaths in Kafr Malik are unclear. The Palestinian foreign ministry said the settlers opened fire on Palestinian residents, while Israeli authorities said there was a firefight between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli security forces. At least three Palestinians were killed and several were wounded, according to Palestinian officials. The Israeli military said 'several' people were killed in the central town, but did not specify whether they were Palestinian or Israeli. Israel has ramped up military operations in the West Bank, displacing thousands of Palestinians and razing entire communities as it targets what it says are militants operating in the territory. Last year, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the state 'must deal with the threat (in the West Bank) just as we deal with the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, including the temporary evacuation of Palestinian residents.' He later warned that the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have fled their West Bank homes would not be allowed to return. Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of inflicting 'massive, deliberate displacement of Palestinian civilians' and making 'much of the territory unlivable' in violation of international law. Israeli settlers have also increased attacks on Palestinian communities and their properties, according to the United Nations' human rights office. Israeli troops or settlers have killed at least 947 Palestinians, among them 200 children, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023 and June 12, the UN reported on June 20. Between October 7, 2023 and June 26, at least 39 Israeli civilians have been killed in the West Bank, according to Israeli government officials. Israel has occupied the West Bank since seizing the territory from Jordan in 1967. In late May, the Israeli government approved the largest expansion of Jewish settlements in the area in decades. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, 'Stripped of basic dignity' In Kafr Malik, social media video geolocated by CNN showed residents panicking as a fire consumed a home and a loud pop rang in the distance. Another video showed a parked car in flames as a resident attempted to extinguish it with a water hose. The IDF said security forces were deployed to the scene after 'dozens of Israeli civilians' had set properties on fire. On arrival, the IDF said, the security forces were met with gunfire and rocks hurled by what it described as 'terrorists' and they returned fire. 'Hits were identified, and it was later reported that there were several individuals injured and fatalities,' the IDF said, adding that five Israelis were arrested. Israeli opposition politician Yair Golan condemned the settler attack, saying: 'What happened this evening in Kafr Malik was a violent Jewish pogrom – dozens of rioters set fire to homes and vehicles, and assaulted Palestinians and security forces.' Palestinian women walk past a charred vehicle, as they survey the destruction wrought Israeli settlers in the West Bank village of Kafr Malik, on Thursday. Ilia Yefimovich/Shortly after the violence in Kafr Malik, there was another settler attack close to the nearby village of Taybeh, according to the Israeli rights organization B'Tselem, which shared footage of masked men torching a parked car. Three people were injured and three cars were set on fire, it said. A third settler attack took place around Jericho, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, which said eight people were injured due to smoke inhalation after a house was set on fire. Mourners carry the bodies of young Palestinians who were killed by Israeli settlers in Kafr Malik. The UN has warned that there is 'no respite' for communities there. Ammar Awad/Reuters A UN official warned there has been 'no respite' for Palestinian people in the northern West Bank, where he accused Israel of imposing 'systematic forced displacement' on refugee communities in 'violation of international law.' 'Out of the spotlight of the regional escalation, camps in the northern West Bank have faced ongoing destruction, with dozens of buildings demolished in the last twelve days,' Roland Friedrich, the director of affairs for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, posted on X on Wednesday. 'Even now, Israeli security forces are continuing to demolish homes and buildings in Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams camps. Stripped of basic dignity, many families have not even been able to save their belongings ahead of anticipated bulldozing.'
Watani
8 hours ago
- Watani
US strikes on Iran: Point of no return?
The early hours of 22 June carried news and photographs of an arrogant, jubilant President Trump announcing that the U.S. had offered Israel the logistic and military support that enabled it to strike three nuclear reactor sites in Iran. Mr Trump praised the strike and lauded its masterful execution by Israel, sarcastically saying that that would not be a standalone operation, but would be followed by others if needs be. Other operations, he said, would naturally be easier given that Iran's claws have been clipped by the first strike and its nuclear capabilities curtailed. The American-led strike took many by surprise since Mr Trump had, just on the eve of the strike, talked of giving Israel and Iran 15-days to negotiate in Muscat, Oman, an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. Yet I say it was no surprise, given that lies have recently gained ground as a modern means of strategic deception in conflict management, and promises of peace are made while preparing for stabs in the back. I see no excuse for the Iranians to have swallowed the US bait a second time, following the initial strike by Israel on 12 June. Now, with the second strike on Iran that targeted three nuclear sites, have we reached the point of no return? Does Iran have any power to avenge itself against Israel? And will any other country rush to support Iran just as the US supported Israel? As I write this, I see the coming days bringing on severe hazards that do not point at any peace between Iran and Israel. There are fears that Iran might, in desperation, execute some irrational retaliatory action; it brings to mind the saying: the hero is the one who's lost everything.. who has nothing left to lose. Today, I bring to my readers excerpts from a rich dialogue that, even if it took place prior to the US strike on Iran, introduced arguments that are still valid. The dialogue, which was broadcast on 20 June on Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast 'Judging Freedom' under the title 'What if the US does attack Iran', took place with John Mearsheimer, 77, American political scientist and international relations scholar, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at University of Chicago. Judge Napolitano started by asking: Is Israel prevailing in its war against Iran, as the mainstream in the West claims? In reply, Prof Mearsheimer said: 'No, Israel is in serious trouble… President Trump said Israel is winning… but the question is: what does winning mean?' To win, the Professor said, is to have a goal and the strategy to achieve it. Israel, he explained, has three stated goals: to eliminate the nuclear capability of Iran, to bring about a regime change and, as articulated by President Trump himself, unconditional surrender by Iran. The first goal cannot be achieved by Israel without US support, and even then Irans's nuclear programme, the uranium enrichment cannot be eliminated. As to the second goal, he said, regime change can never be achieved without invading Iran, something no one in his right mind would do. The third goal of unconditional surrender is laughable, because Iranians will fight till the last person before that happens. So Israelis have no way of achieving the goals they set out to do. Do any serious players actually believe that Iran has nuclear weapons? 'There's no evidence now that Iran has nuclear weapons… but there's no question that Iran has significant nuclear enrichment capabilities that takes them close to having a bomb… but they're a good distance from that now. But you can't tell that to Trump and Netanyahu.' Do you foresee a circumstance under which the Russians or the Chinese will get involved militarily? 'If you're talking about them getting directly involved in the fight, absolutely not. If you're talking about diplomatic, economic, or military support, the answer is certainly yes.' He explained that there is a vested interest for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to stick together against the US, Israel and Ukraine. So they will support one another but not get into the fight. Shouldn't there be in America a great debate about the nature and extent of our involvement in a war that could be disastrous? Why should a person who changes his mind every 10 minutes meet with five people who tell him what he wants to hear make this decision rather than great debates in the House and the Senate on America's role in the world? 'Oh it's very simple. You can't have a great debate on any issue involving Israel. It's just impermissible; the lobby won't allow it. And the reason is that if you have a debate it won't come out in Israel's favour, and this cannot be allowed.' The Professor joined Judge Napolitano in decrying the state of freedom and democracy in the US, and the manner in which decisions are taken. It all ran against the elevated principles that once prevailed in the West, they said, but which are now never upheld, even as the Israeli lobby wields authority over politicians and mainstream media, and as wars, destruction, and genocide are unashamedly promoted under false pretexts. This, they agreed is how the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, are explained off. Watani International 27 June 2025 Comments comments
